remove

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive behavior, and the description aligns with it by stating 'Remove'. The added 'from the current project' provides useful context about scope. However, the description does not disclose specific side effects (e.g., modifying manifest files, updating lock files) beyond what annotations already indicate, so the value-add is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently captures the tool's purpose without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with destructiveHint and an output schema present, this description is adequate. It explains the core action and scope. It could be slightly more complete by specifying what files are affected, but the simplicity of the tool does not demand more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter, package_name, with a description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat or elaborate on parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because no additional semantic nuance is offered beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target resource ('a dependency from the current project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add' (which adds dependencies) and 'pip_uninstall' (which removes packages from the environment rather than the project context).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'current project' which implies project-scoped dependency removal, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pip_uninstall. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.